Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe

[Grey Moon.6531]

> @Zeivu.3615 said:

> > @xDudisx.5914 said:

> > I would like to be informed what are the % chances of each drop. That said, I think it is almost always a bad mistake to increase government power over individuals and markets. Anet is not forcing anyone to buy their RNG boxes. If you want to buy you should be allowed to. If you dont want to buy, just do not buy.

>

>

> And the items don't even have any advantage over anything in game. It's purely cosmetic. I don't really think these people understand the rammifications of getting a gov't involved with their games. If you don't have the willpower to say 'No' and not buy anything entirely optional, how will you stand up to the gov't when they ruin everything you love in your games in an attempt to enforce those laws? There are a lot of technical and programming limitations that only get worse on a global scale. Just ban the game from sale in Belgium or require an ID to make the purchase in Belgium. That is the only reasonable thing you can do without kitten the rest of the world over. (Though I am sure people in Belgium will still find away to do it anyway.)

 

Just as "micro" transactions are not black and white, so is the same with government(s) stepping in when (greedy) corps can't help themselves, but over milk their whales (yes that is how they refer to their really big spending customers). Take Japan for example which is the land of gacha games. Their government actually banned the complete gacha model a while back because it was too much like gambling, but there are still plenty of (not so egregious) gacha games still being made and still making a ton of money.

If it takes E(vil)A to really kitten off the whole world of how they took the loot box too far with BF2; to get other game publishers to review their business practices, what does it say about them?

To some people the money or time they spend on something might not mean anything to them, but to me it means a lot. When I sink my time and money into a game I really hope I'm not funding research that tries to exploit people into spending more money via addiction.

Also lets not kid ourselves, it isn't just people with addictive personalities, a lot of game design is about tagging the reward centres of our fleshy brains, but when the game starts using that mechanism to get us to spend more money then we need to, is that a good thing?

[wolfyrik.2017]

> @costepj.5120 said:

> Yay for Brexit! We won't have to put up with this Nanny State stuff for much longer.

 

Absolutely! If we want to allow the gaming industry to target children with schemes to get them hooked on gambling, that's our right. Down with laws designed to protect children and the vulnerable! Right? Right?

 

....

 

yeah umm no.

[Grey Moon.6531]

> @wolfyrik.2017 said:

> > @costepj.5120 said:

> > Yay for Brexit! We won't have to put up with this Nanny State stuff for much longer.

>

> Absolutely! If we want to allow the gaming industry to target children with schemes to get them hooked on gambling, that's our right. Down with laws designed to protect children and the vulnerable! Right? Right?

>

> ....

>

> yeah umm no.

 

UK especially the Tories are much more hard line and all for government control. Have you seen how they want to knobble encryption because of "reasons"?

IDS is doing a big attack on gambling. I wonder if he (a politician) is going to ignore the chance to join the bandwagon and get more exposure for his agenda?

Yay for brexit because of mostly lies and an increase in prices!!!

[Neural.1824]

> @Zeivu.3615 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > @Zeivu.3615 said:

> > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > > @Zeivu.3615 said:

> > > > > Just how are they going to be able to enforce it? Gw2 is a worldwide game stationed in the USA. Are they going to make a separate servers that are isolated from the rest of the gaming world like China? Are they going to have to ban access to the gem store if you are using a specific IP (God, help you if you get a false positive)? Are they going to have to check your age when you sign up (Like underage children won't lie to access the content)? The international laws will just muddy everything too.

> > > >

> > > > If anet wants gw2 to operate in EU region after gambling restrictions go live, they have to make changes or leave the market.

> > >

> > > Repeat: Just how are they going to do that?

> >

> > not my problem, nobody pays me to find solutions

>

> Why bother even quoting me then if you are neither going to offer a solution or at least read anything that I type? What are you really trying to accomplish?

 

LOL. It is simply a fact. If the law changes, it is up to Arenanet to figure out how to adapt. It's not his job to fix the problem for them.

 

If the EU decides for some reason that pigs are offensive for some reason and decides to ban any games in the EU from having depictions of pigs in any form, that's tough luck for companies that can't adapt. It is not the responsibility of anyone other than the company to find a way to solve the problem.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> So while you might feel right by saying its greed, theres no law prohibiting any game company to put "super high prices" on their virtual items. Also greed, but totally allowed.

 

I don't think there should be any outside regulation saying how much an ingame item can cost, but I do believe in regulation preventing or at least limiting the gambling aspect. If ANet wants to set a high fixed price, then fine, I just won't buy it, but gambling is still the wrong way to go. Based on other items they have released, and the cost on those items, I just cannot see the justification in the existing mount skins selling for some unreasonably high amount.

 

> @Zeivu.3615 said:

> Repeat: Just how are they going to do that?

 

It's been done. Look into it.

 

> @Teratus.2859 said:

> Exactly my fear.. cheap mount skins removed and replaced with expensive ones because people were salty about the RNG element.

> Sorry but when it comes right down to it.. I'll take cheap skins with RNG every time over the ridiculous presumption that a singular mount skin is worth the price of an expansion pack.

 

The issue there is that so far we haven't seen any cheap mount skins. Even 400 gems isn't particularly "cheap," and that's assuming that you get the ones you want. Sure, if you want 30 skins, then 400 gems is at least *reasonable* average pricing for them, but if we assume that most players will not want *all* of them, if a player wanted even just half the skins then he would be paying 800 gems to get those he wanted. If he only wanted ten of the skins he'd be paying 1200 each for them. If he only wanted five, one for each mount, he'd be paying 2,400 each, more than for the Warhound.

 

I agree that the Warhound's price is too much, and obviously they can't set the other skins at that price, or even 1/4 of that price, but the premise that they would *have* to is just nonsense spin. No way would the skins cost so much time to produce that they could not be profitable at an average price of around 400-600 gems (with cost varied based on complexity and desirability).

 

 

[Ashen.2907]

what is and is not considered cheap is subjective for each and every player in the game.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> what is and is not considered cheap is subjective for each and every player in the game.

 

True, but like with anything, the highest revenue is achieved by finding the right balance between "getting the most customers possible," and "making as much as possible off each customer." They could obviously charge a lot to a few customers, or charge a little to a lot more customers. They have their own metrics, but I feel that they would be better off selling to more customers, and that means pricing them at a level that is reasonable to a lot of customers. $25 is too much for most players for one skin. Even $10 is fairly pricey for most of the skins we've seen so far.

[DarcShriek.5829]

There's something that people need to understand that apparently they don't. When one person from Belgium, even a minister of Belgium says something it doesn't mean that's what Belgium believes. It only what he believes. That's especially so when a state rep from Hawaii says something. He is only speaking for himself, he is not speaking for the whole state of Hawaii. The title of this thread is misleading.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @Teratus.2859 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > > Aggressive RNG is bad for the game.. yes we all know what's happened in recent times with the likes of Battlefront2 so trying to make the RNG system a little faire but still maintaining a revenue stream seems a smart move to me.. what's the alternative - subscription. So maybe they do away with loot boxes and introduce subscription then lets see the forums light up.

> >

> > Both systems were wrong.

> >

> > Is no one else going to bring up that no Glider skin cost more than 1000 gems. Meanwhile mounts are being squeezed harder than your average junkie looking for his next quick fix.

> >

> > Both practices are disturbing and both should be looked down on.

>

> Exactly my fear.. cheap mount skins removed and replaced with expensive ones because people were salty about the RNG element.

> Sorry but when it comes right down to it.. I'll take cheap skins with RNG every time over the ridiculous presumption that a singular mount skin is worth the price of an expansion pack.

>

> To quote on Bloodstealer too.. if Anet added a monthly sub to this game.. I don't care how much I love this game nor how much money and time i've invested into it.. if they added a monthly sub I would quit playing the day they announced it.

> But I know they wouldn't do that.. Anet are well aware that no sub fees was a huge selling point for the Guildwars franchise.. and chances are a huge number of the Gw2 community would leave the game if they added them.

>

Exactly my point

 

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @wolfyrik.2017 said:

> > @costepj.5120 said:

> > Yay for Brexit! We won't have to put up with this Nanny State stuff for much longer.

>

> Absolutely! If we want to allow the gaming industry to target children with schemes to get them hooked on gambling, that's our right. Down with laws designed to protect children and the vulnerable! Right? Right?

>

> ....

>

> yeah umm no.

 

Of course the parents of those kids that are so easily allowed to whip out their the credits to buy the gems... they are blameless to this apparent gambling epidemic with kids online gaming gambling society... hmmm

Like we have already stated, GW2 works on the same kind of system that shops have been doing for decades.. football cards, pokemon, baseball cards with sugary sweets as a guaranteed sweetener.. maybe we need to ban sweets cos it can be addictive and cause major health issues from an early age. Heck nowadays even the sweet is often irrelevant to sale cos of the RNG of the most sought after cards.

McDonalds have that Monopoly game.. I can never seem to get the places on the board I want, but heck the amount of Big Mac, fries and cokes has been so worth it so far....

 

 

[Nemmar.8491]

> @Shikigami.4013 said:

> Kinder Surprise soon also to be banned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise

>

> They have been around for more than 40 years and noone cared. Maybe it is time, especially as they are aimed at children. Go for it, Belgium! :)

 

Here come the old fallacies. Cards, stickers, kinder, you are buying a physical good. You still get stickers, cards or chocolate and a toy.

Lootboxes are nothing but numbers, you are simply buying the chance to get something.

 

Mobile games will also be affected as they should.

Games that use gambling to survive are failed games that need to end. It is not an excuse for predatory practices and gambling. You want to make a gambling game, you open a casino.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> There's something that people need to understand that apparently they don't. When one person from Belgium, even a minister of Belgium says something it doesn't mean that's what Belgium believes. It only what he believes. That's especially so when a state rep from Hawaii says something. He is only speaking for himself, he is not speaking for the whole state of Hawaii. The title of this thread is misleading.

 

No, apparently every person currently living in Belgium raised their voices as one and declared that loot boxes are gambling. It was very weird.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @Shikigami.4013 said:

> Kinder Surprise soon also to be banned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise

>

> They have been around for more than 40 years and noone cared. Maybe it is time, especially as they are aimed at children. Go for it, Belgium! :)

 

I don't know for other people/kids/bloody princesses or princes, but I wanted Kinder Eggs for 2 things.

To see what toy was inside and I wanted candy/chocolate.

 

I knew by the size of them, it would've been cereal box tier toys usually inside. Aka cheap things I might play for a while and not care too much on later.

I wasn't a smart kid, but I mainly wanted to see a surprise while having chocolate. My main goal was always the chocolate.

As I got older I stopped buying them, and of course not because of the "RNG", but because I didn't care for the surprises no more and I still wanted chocolate so... I got the chocolate by itself.

 

In the case of "loot boxes" I can't say I would like... let's say the mounts. I'm not getting a random mount and chocolate OR anything for that matter. I'm just getting a random skin that I might either:

1. Not have a mount for and might never have that mount whether it's griffon or even down to Springer/Skimmer/Jackal. Some people would be more than happy with just Raptor or Raptor and Springer.

2. Skin for a mount they almost never use. My case would be the Skimmer. Unless there's water or I'm in PoF and there's water/quicksand... I will never use it. Springer I technically "never use" outside of jumping to high areas so I wouldn't care for a Springer skin.

3. They simply only see very very few skins they want in that whole 30. Maybe 5... maybe 3... maybe just 1... I'm in the category of just 1.

 

If it was the situation of "Try your chance at random and get a random mount skin AND something else with it" I might've maybe bite and bought at least one of those tickets. Keyword of course is maybe.

I've never bought a black lion chest key, but I do use them when I can (after seeing what's to offer inside... like right now I'm keeping hold of every single one of my keys because there's not a single thing for me in the current chests I want. Not those floating Navis or those weird "white glowing stone looking like a caveman with bling" they call Leyline weapons. Just my opinion on how they look, but yeah...

The reason I use them is I know even if I get nothing I want, it's either "keep these keys forever and just rot in my bank" or "Use it and hope I get something I want". I mean... as I said I don't buy keys so they're technically free stuff either way so that RNG I'm okay with.

Those that are too addicted and buying keys? That's all on them. I'm not going to bash Arenanet on keys and chests because they already put them in as "You can get them once a week from the story or randomly from map completion or if you're super mega ultra lucky you can get 1 drop from an enemy once every year or so."

If someone want to quickly progress that... by all means... buy the keys.

 

The mount case with the keys you can't do that. It's not like, "Complete the renown heart at the mount stable and randomly maybe get a mount skin" or something like that or maybe "Do this part of the story on a character and you might get this mount skin as a reward" and then those that can't stomach going through the game maybe can just RNG the mounts quickly for a price. I mean... they do that with waypoints and leveling to 80 and boosters and such so...

 

All in all, what I'm saying is Kinder Eggs are way more tame and more of a novelty thing for kids to be excited for (and it's a physical item they own... remember now that everything in GW2? You don't own skritt... the server can go down tomorrow... you don't own skritt), than a digital weapon skin from a FPS or a random upgrade item in a fighting game or in this case... a mount changing skin in an online game.

 

I still feel bad for those people who spent thousands in Pokémon GO last year because they're one of those compusive addicts only to drop the game less than 12 months later as the majority of GO players have done.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @Zeivu.3615 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > @Zeivu.3615 said:

> > > Just how are they going to be able to enforce it? Gw2 is a worldwide game stationed in the USA. Are they going to make a separate servers that are isolated from the rest of the gaming world like China? Are they going to have to ban access to the gem store if you are using a specific IP (God, help you if you get a false positive)? Are they going to have to check your age when you sign up (Like underage children won't lie to access the content)? The international laws will just muddy everything too.

> >

> > If anet wants gw2 to operate in EU region after gambling restrictions go live, they have to make changes or leave the market.

>

> Repeat: Just how are they going to do that?

 

I mean, I've seen a video on Chinese GW2 and the way it's set up is like foreign to what I see on the version I'm obviously playing.

Could just rechange how the EU version is done.

I'm not Arenanet obviously so I have no clue how or when or whichever, but it is possible.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Zeivu.3615 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > @Zeivu.3615 said:

> > > Just how are they going to be able to enforce it? Gw2 is a worldwide game stationed in the USA. Are they going to make a separate servers that are isolated from the rest of the gaming world like China? Are they going to have to ban access to the gem store if you are using a specific IP (God, help you if you get a false positive)? Are they going to have to check your age when you sign up (Like underage children won't lie to access the content)? The international laws will just muddy everything too.

> >

> > If anet wants gw2 to operate in EU region after gambling restrictions go live, they have to make changes or leave the market.

>

> Repeat: Just how are they going to do that?

That would be up to Anet, of course.

 

You are mistaken in thinking that it would be on EU's side to prevent connecting to GW2 from happening. Anet is a big, legal corporation that's not in hiding. EU would just _fine_ them if Anet didn't take care of this on their own. And you can be sure that such a fine would be big enough to take care of all gains Anet might potentially make from ignoring the ban (usual penalties in cases of illegal gambling sites _start_ at 100% of the income earned with said activity)

 

And, of course, if Anet could not think of a way to remove themselves from EU market, then their only option would be to adjust to EU laws.

 

No, contrary to what some Americans may think, when doing business with Europe, being an American does not let you ignore EU laws.

 

 

[GrubySzymek.1362]

Someone mentioned kinder surprise being banned. They already are in US :D

[AlexanderDracul.7492]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but Belgium has in fact not declared lootboxes gambling just yet. A good video reporting about it is:

[Nemmar.8491]

Did you watch the video you linked Alexander?

There is no conclusion of the investigation yet, but an informative note of the issue of money in online games was developed.

 

That is what we heard about.

 

It means there is nothing official yet, but the decision seems to be taking the weight of what was shared with us. They also gave the statement of their minister of justice that corroborated the story. So, this is very much still a thing.

[PopeUrban.2578]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> There's something that people need to understand that apparently they don't. When one person from Belgium, even a minister of Belgium says something it doesn't mean that's what Belgium believes. It only what he believes. That's especially so when a state rep from Hawaii says something. He is only speaking for himself, he is not speaking for the whole state of Hawaii. The title of this thread is misleading.

 

Technically, in the US, that rep is speaking for the entire territory he represents. That is his one and only job, and the one and only job of any democratically elected official in any democratic system. Is it a perfect representation? No. Of course not. That would require every single human being in a district to agree on everything. It would require a direct legal mechanism for constituents to directly veto decisions made by representatives that are wildly unpopular.

 

However the entire purpose of any democratic system is, literally, that you elect representatives that serve as an intermediary between the public and whatever level of government they work in. People came up with this system because the majority of them have stuff to do that prevents them from directly weighing in on the minutiae of every single legislative action at a local and federal level because that's a full time job. Majority electorate systems are designed to select legislators that take a vow of office that says, specifically, that their responsibility to to represent both the people that voted for them, and the people that do not.

 

I would say that although not every such elected official is actually doing their job properly, in this case you have a person who is doing exactly what his job is.

 

This rep is not "speaking for himself" because that's not his job. His job is to speak for his constituents in both a legal and practical sense, yes, he is in fact speaking for his constituents, and if his constituents find something he's doing to be against their wishes it is also his job to change his position on it.

[AlexanderDracul.7492]

> @Nemmar.8491 said:

> Did you watch the video you linked Alexander?

> There is no conclusion of the investigation yet, but an informative note of the issue of money in online games was developed.

>

> That is what we heard about.

>

> It means there is nothing official yet, but the decision seems to be taking the weight of what was shared with us. They also gave the statement of their minister of justice that corroborated the story. So, this is very much still a thing.

 

The video and comment were meant to show that no definitive decision has been made. The internet seemed to have misinterpreted information and assumed the investigation over with lootbox banning as a result. So, while the conversation of lootbox banning is still of value, there is no legal ruling in Belgium just yet.

 

I'm clarifying since it seemed you interpreted my comment as condemning or neglecting the value of the conversation itself.

[Torolan.5816]

Governments, especially Western Europe and the US governments, often give the impression that they are toothless paper tigers and lap dogs of the industry. And for the largest majority of times this is brutally correct. There are only a selected few things you better not touch or risk to get drowned in a skrittstorm or epic propotions. To give you an example, after Fukushima Germany declared a very rare moratorium regarding nuclear power plants, basically sentencing that industry to a hastened demise here. In some instances, Indutry can fight back and turn back the clock but sometimes the outrage of the voter ist too strong to ignore it.

 

Not saying that it is happening at this point too, but for some weird reason the words children and gambit in one sentence will probably raise more eybrows than for example:

"Farmers get more cancer by living near a powerplant, owner says lol deal with it or sue me."

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @PopeUrban.2578 said:

> > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > There's something that people need to understand that apparently they don't. When one person from Belgium, even a minister of Belgium says something it doesn't mean that's what Belgium believes. It only what he believes. That's especially so when a state rep from Hawaii says something. He is only speaking for himself, he is not speaking for the whole state of Hawaii. The title of this thread is misleading.

>

> Technically, in the US, that rep is speaking for the entire territory he represents. That is his one and only job, and the one and only job of any democratically elected official in any democratic system. Is it a perfect representation? No. Of course not. That would require every single human being in a district to agree on everything. It would require a direct legal mechanism for constituents to directly veto decisions made by representatives that are wildly unpopular.

>

> However the entire purpose of any democratic system is, literally, that you elect representatives that serve as an intermediary between the public and whatever level of government they work in. People came up with this system because the majority of them have stuff to do that prevents them from directly weighing in on the minutiae of every single legislative action at a local and federal level because that's a full time job. Majority electorate systems are designed to select legislators that take a vow of office that says, specifically, that their responsibility to to represent both the people that voted for them, and the people that do not.

>

> I would say that although not every such elected official is actually doing their job properly, in this case you have a person who is doing exactly what his job is.

>

> This rep is not "speaking for himself" because that's not his job. His job is to speak for his constituents in both a legal and practical sense, yes, he is in fact speaking for his constituents, and if his constituents find something he's doing to be against their wishes it is also his job to change his position on it.

 

I see that you like civics lessons so here is one for you. Lincoln ended slavery in them 19th century. The state rep is not a slave and speaks for himself. Just as I speak for myself and you speak for yourself. He is not speaking for his constituents, he is speaking to his constituents. There is a big difference. When Hawaii speaks, it will create a law. Until then, it's just reps talking.

 

Also, just as on this forum, I'm sure his constituents hold multiple opinions on this. Please explain how he could possibly know what the opinion of the majority of his constituents is on this subject? Most don't even know this is an issue.

 

BTW your civics lesson, in addition to being inapropriate for this forum is wildly inacurate.

[Leamas.5803]

I know I'm in a minority here, but I consider pretty much all micro-transaction types of things a cancer in any game. At best, it's an "easy" button, ant worst it really does enable gambling. Loot boxes are an issue, like any RNG-based construct, but I consider loot boxes to be minor. In GW2, a bigger issue are things like the MF, hell it even kind of looks like a slot machine...same with the BL chests, which are loot bags, yes, but the presentation looks very slot machine like. The MF, no matter how you slice it, especially, is flat out gambling. I've known people who've drop 10000g+ in to the MF "trying to get PCs", gold they bought with gems, bought with real money. Unless you're addicted to it, it makes no sense to drop that kind of coin on such a venture, when you could just buy the PC off the TP for a fraction of that.

 

Worst things that have ever happened to real gaming...mobile gaming, micro-transactions and games released in episodes (You usually end up pay $100+ by the time you get the whole game, if you don't lose interest by then). Hard to get away from these things in MMOs, though I do appreciate GW2 release LW for free, so I don't mind paying a bit more for the expansions. PAYING for incomplete pre-releases is another new trend I just don't understand. Time was, be it open or closed, when they would let you beta test games for free. Mobile gaming takes micro-transactions to a whole different level, making many games unplayable unless you keep pumping money in.

[DarcShriek.5829]

I wish that GW2 had gambling for cash.

[DarcShriek.5829]

I think I'll lobby my representatives to not change the laws regarding loot boxes in video games. I think it's great that they can have them. In fact I want to urge everyone to contact their representatives and tell them to leave loot boxes and the like alone. We enjoy them and want to continue to see them in our games. I hope Anet continues to add new skins to the current mount adoption system. I know other's feel this way because I've seen a lot of players buy these skins.